| |
Town Hall threw in towel, leaving us to battle arcade
• HAVING followed and supported the retention of A1 retail use of the central Emily’s Homes site in Archway, in preference to turning it into a gambling arcade, I was outraged to turn up at the planning appeal and find that the council representatives withdrew any opposition to the appeal (Bombshell as casino fight is abandoned, May 8). The shop in question is next to a funeral home, across the road from a church and social services office, and in an area where approximately half of the residents live in social housing and a majority on benefits.
The council has talked a great deal about supporting regeneration for Archway. This has not been reflected in its actions. First, a licence was given for the venture, despite obvious cause for concern given the abundance of vulnerable people and schoolchildren in the area.
Then, last week dozens of us took time to turn up to support the council oppose a planning application for change of use. And that very morning as we sat down to start, the officers accepted a “concession” by Agora/Ablethird. It had offered to close Cash City, further down the street, in return for being allowed to open a site approximately three times larger in a much more prominent location. Wouldn’t it have closed the smaller shop anyway?
This idea had been tabled weeks if not months ago, so why did the council wait until the 11th hour when none of us could prepare any other arguments, then throw in the towel and sit and watch concerned residents do their best to oppose the appeal through two full days of hearing?
It’s all about policy, but we have to ask who drafted a policy that claims that any one shop is equivalent to another, even if one is 10 times larger than the other? It was, of course, the council. Actions speak louder than words and that is not a policy that supports on-the-ground regeneration.
So who’s council is it? They are supposed to be our representatives and yet obviously they are not that interested when it comes to taking any useful action.
STELLA MICHAEL
N19
• I ATTENDED much of the hearing into plans for a new gambling arcade for Archway.
It is distressing that, despite much effort (including voluntary time) and expenditure of taxpayers’ money, the planning regulations and local plans do not reflect what the vast majority of Archway residents and tenants want them to say – “we have enough provision of gaming and slot machines to achieve a balanced town centre, thank you”.
We do not need more slot machines and I did not hear a single word of evidence to suggest the benefit of such an increase in facilities and hence the need for change of use of the original premises.
Since the proposal made on the day to swap premises reduced the floor area for slot machines and was deemed more acceptable by the appellant, is this not a tacit acceptance of the proposition that “less slot machines are better”? Since the entire appellant’s case seemed to be based on justifying the existence of the facility in the first place, let’s hope the inspector can see our point of view.
Perhaps we should take the same view as party leaders over the current MPs’ expenses fiasco – whatever the rules say, things are clearly going wrong.
ALAN PERRY
Parolles Road, N19
|
| |
|
|
 |
| |
| |
| |
